[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On this, our last full parliamentary day, may I wish you every success in your parliamentary re-election campaign? I am sure that it will be smooth and uneventful, and will return you to us safely--or at least to those of us who will be here after the election.
	I seek your advice, Mr. Speaker, because until 5 o'clock on Monday we will all be Members of Parliament and able to fulfil our duties correspondingly, but after that those of us who are seeking re-election will be mere candidates. I am pursuing our embassy in Rio de Janeiro on a matter on behalf of my constituent, Mr. Williams, and I get the feeling that the embassy is incompetent or, worse, stonewalling, possibly until it thinks that I am safely out of way as a Member of Parliament. Can you think of any way in which those of us who are in our dying hours as MPs, about to be reduced to mere candidates, can still exercise some influence on behalf of our former constituents with recalcitrant bureaucrats, diplomats and worse? Any help that you can give me and other Members will be much appreciated.

Mr. Speaker: I would not advise the right hon. Gentleman to go personally to Rio de Janeiro to try to sort out the matter. He is a persistent individual, and all that I can advise is persistence. It is nice of a fellow Glaswegian to wish me well in the general election, and given that I am a non-party candidate the right hon. Gentleman is welcome to come up to Glasgow to give me a hand.

Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course, as a non-Glaswegian, I endorse those sentiments. In view of my right hon. Friend's persistence and loquacity, could you arrange for the Chamber to be opened on Monday so that he can come here and speak until 5 o'clock?

Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you been informed of any recommendation, decision or thought of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about keeping Members and ex-Members informed about foot and mouth disease, which is still serious in certain counties?
	If I may, I will go further than my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and say that the House deserves to thank you for the difficult task, which you have taken on, of following a well-respected Speaker. You have certainly made your own mark, and I pay tribute to you for so doing. If you could help us on agriculture, it would be even better.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his typical kindness to me. Like all hon. Members, I recognise that this is a terrible time for rural areas. Without taking sides, I can safely say that the Minister of Agriculture has been very good in coming to the House and giving an account of what is going on. He will take note of the fact that contact with, and easy access to, the Ministry has to be maintained throughout the election to ensure that rural communities are looked after in the best way possible. I think that is the most that I can say on the matter.
	Before I start the main business, I acknowledge that there are many Members present, including right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, who are retiring. We will miss you all.

CHILDREN'S COMMISSIONER FOR WALES BILL (PROGRAMME) (No. 3)

Ordered,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 16th January and 8th February:

Consideration of Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

2. Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.--[Mr. McNulty.]

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Application of Part 5 of the

Care Standards Act 2000
	Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 28, leave out subsection (3) and insert--
	"(3) For subsection (6) substitute--
	"(6) Regulations may provide for the references to a child in subsection (1) to include references to a person (including a child) who was at any time (including a time before the commencement of this Part)--
	(a) a child ordinarily resident in Wales;
	(b) a child to or in respect of whom services were provided in Wales by, or on behalf of or under arrangements with, a person mentioned in Schedule 2B; or
	(c) a child to or in respect of whom regulated children's services in Wales were provided.""

David Hanson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	I thank you for your remarks, Mr. Speaker. Government Members wish you well in your attempt at parliamentary re-election, and you certainly know where our sympathies lie regarding your subsequent re-election attempt.
	I hope that the amendments will not be controversial. There have been no Divisions in the other place or the Commons on these matters. This is a technical amendment, which will extend the application of part 5 of the Care Standards Act 2000 to ensure that the commissioner can exercise his jurisdiction in respect of dead children and those who, sadly, die in circumstances that he may wish to investigate.
	The Government have re-examined clause 1, and we believe that there may be some doubt about the commissioner's jurisdiction in respect of such children. Given the tragic circumstances in cases such as that of Anna Climbie, of which the whole House will be aware, it is important that we ensure that the commissioner can consider the role of relevant agencies in Wales if he wishes to investigate following the death of a child. I hope that there will be general support for the amendment. I have had discussions with Opposition parties, and I know that they support it. I commend it to the House.

Angela Browning: I, too, wish those Members who are retiring, some of whom are present in the Chamber, a happy retirement, especially the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). Although we hope that his will not be a full retirement, he is departing this Parliament and we wish him well for the future. On a personal note, I should like to say to another Member who has taken a special interest in children's issues, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), that I wish her every joy in whatever she does after leaving Parliament.
	We welcome the amendments. The Minister is right to say that they did not cause division along party lines in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), who led on many of the issues in Committee, made many of the same points that the Minister has made today. We are glad that the Government have reconsidered their position and tabled the amendments. The fact that the Bill is to receive Royal Assent is welcome to us, albeit with one caveat, which is that we hoped that it would extend to England as well. However, that can be dealt with in future. I agree with the Minister's comments. The Conservatives will be happy to support the amendment.

Martyn Jones: I, too, support the amendment. I congratulate the Government on getting the Bill through late in the Parliament when it could easily have got lost. I am glad on behalf of the children of Wales that it did not.
	As Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which first recommended the establishment of a Children's Commissioner for Wales, I am pleased that the Assembly has seen fit to implement our recommendation. There is a possibility that jurisdiction might be extended to England from Wales. In our latest inquiry, we are considering the position of children who are in custody in England, whose rights might not be as good as they would be in Wales. I hope that the Government take that further when they are re-elected and that they establish commissioners throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.

David Hanson: On the extension of commissioners to other parts of the UK, the Government will examine the role of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), will reflect on the Welsh experience. There will be opportunities to consider the matter further. I am grateful for the Opposition's support for the amendment.
	I echo the good wishes to right hon. and hon. Members who are retiring from Parliament. I know that some will speak later today.
	Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 3
	 — 
	Principal aim of the Commissioner

Lords amendment: No. 2, in line 21, leave out
	"by the Assembly of any function"
	and insert
	"of any function of the Assembly".

David Hanson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 6.

David Hanson: The amendments are technical amendments that have been discussed with the Opposition, considered in the other place and received full support from Members in both Houses.
	There are circumstances in which the Assembly and the bodies listed in schedule 2 may delegate the exercise of their functions to other persons: for example, the Assembly delegates its duties to provide careers advice to the careers service. It is important that the commissioner's review function under clause 3 extends to all the Assembly's functions and to the functions of other bodies listed, whoever exercises them. Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 will remove any doubt about whether the commissioner can do that.
	Lords amendment No. 6 is another Government amendment that will add community councils in Wales to the list of bodies whose exercise of functions is subject to review by the commissioner under clause 3. The issue of adding community or town councils was raised by Members in another place on the basis that such councils, especially larger ones, occasionally exercise functions that affect children: for example, provision of playgrounds and recreational facilities. The Government have considered that argument and agree that the addition is appropriate. The Wales Association of Community and Town Councils has been informed and welcomes the change, as does the National Assembly. There is cross-party support for the amendments.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.

After Clause 4

Lords amendment: No. 4, to insert the following new clause--
	"Additional power of consideration and representation
	(1) After section 75 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c. 14) insert--
	"75A Additional power of consideration and representation
	(1) The Commissioner may consider, and make representations to the Assembly about, any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children in Wales.
	(2) The function of the Commissioner under subsection (1) is exercisable only where he does not have power to consider and make representations about the matter in question by virtue of any other provision of this Act or any other enactment."."
	(2) In section 74 of that Act--
	(a) in subsection (1), after "may" insert ", in connection with the Commissioner's functions under this Part,"; and
	(b) after that subsection insert--
	"(1A) The reference in subsection (1) to functions of the Commissioner does not include a reference to his power to consider and make representations by virtue of section 75A(1)."

David Hanson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 5.

David Hanson: The amendments are more substantial than the technical amendments that we have considered hitherto. The Government have reflected on the issues and taken steps in the other place to ensure that this House has the opportunity to discuss the amendments. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), who raised the matter in Committee and persuaded the Government to table amendments.
	The Government have carefully considered the concerns expressed about the commissioner having no formal role in respect of policies and services that do not come within the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales. As a result, we tabled the amendment that will empower the commissioner to consider, and make representations to the National Assembly for Wales on, any matter that affects the rights and welfare of children in Wales. That means that the commissioner will have a formal role in matters that do not fall within the National Assembly's devolved responsibilities.
	I hope that will reflect the commissioner's relationship with the Assembly and the need to establish a structure for the new function, which has the potential to be extremely wide. The commissioner could, if he wanted, make representations on several matters as a part of his annual report to the Assembly, or ad hoc as he considers necessary. The Assembly will then be able to consider the commissioner's representations on matters that are Government responsibilities, and make representations to the Government under section 33 of the Government of Wales Act 1998.
	The commissioner is an integral but independent part of the strategy of the National Assembly for Wales. The Government have been pleased to support the extension of the role and responsibilities of the commissioner. We remain firmly of the opinion that the commissioner's main field of jurisdiction should be bodies that have functions within the Assembly's devolved responsibilities. However, there will be opportunities for the commissioner to consider issues that are Government responsibilities and to make representations to the Assembly so that it can consider them and, if need be, using its powers under the Government of Wales Act, make representations to the Government.
	I hope that we shall have cross-party support for the change. I have discussed the matter with right hon. and hon. Members and I believe that it is welcome in both Houses.

Angela Browning: I welcome the amendments. The reason that we have not heard about the Bill for some time might be that the Government were busy reading the Committee Hansard and considering the sensible proposals made by my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). If so, I am pleased to see that the Minister has taken their arguments on board.
	The scope for the commissioner and the role that he is to perform on behalf of children in Wales mean that he must have powers that will enable him fully to represent children's interests when they are in question. Representations were made to the Government while the Bill was in Committee: the Minister knows that the National Assembly itself, with many voluntary and charitable organisations, recommended that the commissioner should have a role that extended beyond the constraints of the Assembly.
	In its report on the Children's Commissioner for Wales, the Health and Social Services Committee of the National Assembly said:
	"We have given consideration as to whether the Commissioner's remit should include policy and services that affect children in Wales but for which responsibility has not been devolved to the Assembly, such as the benefit system.
	That is not a devolved matter, but it is easy to see how a commissioner acting in children's interests would need to have influence on it. The report continues:
	"We believe that such jurisdiction would be desirable to promote the rights and welfare of children in Wales."
	In that connection, I draw attention to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset in Committee, where he argued that it was impossible to legislate on the basis that in investigating child abuse, the only officials with whom the commissioner would have contact were those from organisations that fell within the remit of the National Assembly for Wales. Clearly, people who abuse children may be working for or in contact with agencies other than those for which the National Assembly has responsibility. The measure is a practical one that genuinely represents the interests of children, which is what the commissioner is all about.

Win Griffiths: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) and myself, I congratulate the Government and thank them for accepting the amendment, for which we argued strongly in Committee and which, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, was supported by the Opposition. Clearly, that continued in the other place as well.
	I shall not rehearse all the arguments that were used. I am pleased that, in the context of devolution, the Government were sufficiently positive and flexible to give the commissioner the powers that a wide range of individuals and organisations considered necessary for his job to be carried out in a way that would support children's needs in Wales. I thank the Government for introducing the amendment, to allow the Bill to go forward in a more complete form.

Jenny Tonge: I rise to question the Minister about a matter that concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), who cannot be present this morning. It relates to Lords amendment No. 4 and the additional power of consideration and representation.
	The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) referred repeatedly to the welfare of children in Wales. We are concerned that a considerable number of Welsh youngsters aged between 16 and 18 are in prison or on remand, but not many are in centres in Wales. The lack of suitable prison and remand accommodation, combined with the fact that the commissioner cannot exercise any power in respect of Welsh youngsters on remand outside Wales, means that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the commissioner to represent their interests.
	That is in marked contrast to the case of children who are unfortunate enough to be in hospital, for example. Health is a devolved matter, and the trusts and health authorities are accountable to the Assembly, so the children's commissioner can work to support their welfare. Can we have the Minister's assurance that the Government will do all that they can to facilitate the commissioner's access to children being detained outside Wales, and that they will consider how the commissioner might act as advocate on behalf of such children?

Dafydd Wigley: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate on a Bill relating to Wales as my last contribution as Member of Parliament for Caernarfon. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kind words earlier, and I thank other colleagues for their kindness not only now, but over many years, and their forbearance when we may have expressed ourselves with greater enthusiasm than was considered appropriate.

Eric Forth: No, never.

Dafydd Wigley: I am glad that I still trigger the occasional response from Scottish Members sitting for English seats.
	I welcome the amendments, as I welcome the Bill. On the comments of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), I am under the impression that the amendments under discussion meet the very circumstances that she described, as they broaden the definition of the children who come within the purview of the Children's Commissioner for Wales--we dealt with that in amendment No. 1--and also, through the present group of amendments, broaden the responsibilities in the context of the Assembly and outside it. Taken together, I hope that they address the problem to which the hon. Lady drew attention. The Minister indicates his agreement with that, and no doubt he will comment when he winds up the debate. Those are important points. I imagine that that is why the Government considered it necessary to introduce the amendments.
	It is significant that the Bill is the first one that was requested formally by the National Assembly for Wales. We do not yet have the power to pass primary legislation, so until we get such power, I hope that that will be a means of pursuing the legislative needs of Wales, particularly where circumstances are different, as, sadly, have been the circumstances that led to the need for a children's commissioner.
	I am interested to hear that hon. Members representing English constituencies hope that those powers will be made available in other parts of the United Kingdom in due course. That is as it should be. If good ideas are progressed from the National Assembly for Wales that can be taken up elsewhere, all the better, as likewise, no doubt, the National Assembly will be looking for ideas that we can implement in Wales.
	There is, however, one aspect that leaves me with a little uncertainty. It has been suggested to me by organisations dealing with and on behalf of children that the amendments may have knock-on effects on other parts of the Bill and possibly on the Care Standards Act 2000. There may need to be more consequential amendments in order to put into effect the changes that we are making today. That was pointed out to me last night.
	If that is the case, how can small and perhaps technical amendments be introduced? That underlines the need for a fast track for Wales for fairly simple legislative changes to turn powers such as those in the Bill into reality. That is particularly necessary if we do not have in the National Assembly the full legislative power that we would like to have had. Perhaps the Minister will give a thought to that.
	A further question arises in the context of the changes, as we consider powers to deal with circumstances outside Wales. I refer to the situation in the global world in which we live. Children may move from country to country, and a series of abuses may take place in different countries. Whereas we have a system for registering and identifying the people who may be guilty of abuse, we do not have a system to co-ordinate information about the abuse that may be suffered by an individual child, possibly carried out by different people and possibly in different countries. In the global world that we inhabit, we may have to consider that in a more international context, to make sure that such children are protected.
	When I was elected in 1974, I did not know the meaning of the word "paedophile". That reflects some of the sad changes that have taken place over the years, or perhaps, more importantly, the fact that we now recognise unacceptable behaviour, which existed then but may have been swept under the carpet. The development of the office of the Children's Commissioner for Wales and the powers that the House has given to the commissioner is a step in the right direction.
	Much has changed since 1974 when I entered Parliament. When I made my maiden speech on 18 March 1974, looking forward to changes such as the establishment of the Welsh Development Agency and the need for answers to our social and cultural problems in Wales, I concluded with the comment that I hoped that I would see, even in that Parliament of 1974 to 1979, the establishment of a legislative assembly that could deliver policies for Wales such as that embodied by the Bill. Although we now have a National Assembly that can do much of the work, more still remains to be done. As I depart from the Chamber, it is my hope that I will have an opportunity to pursue those matters in another place, in Cardiff.

Eric Forth: I wish the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) very well on his voluntary departure from this place to take up his work elsewhere.
	I echo the theme suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. Yes, much has changed since 1974, not least the emergence into our body politic and our lives of commissioners. I am uneasy about that development, and I recently expressed that view in a different context in relation to another Bill. I am slightly reassured that, with this commissioner, we are using Wales as a test case. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), who hoped that the provision would be extended to England as soon as possible; I hope that it is not.
	As I am uneasy about the amendments, I should like an assessment of how the commissioner works in Wales before we dream of extending the provision elsewhere. Having a liberal sprinkling of commissioners all over the place is a dubious idea; it remains to be seen whether it is beneficial. I am worried about the powers that we give commissioners and their apparent unaccountability and unelected nature. Our judiciary has centuries of tradition of independence although, at times, some of us get uneasy about even that. Now, however, we have a new breed of officials who are being given increasingly extensive powers--all in a good cause, of course, and always for the best. At our peril, we neglect the other side of the ledger: the possible dangers involved in the exercise of those powers. I am therefore uneasy about the amendment, which seeks to extend the powers even further before the experiment has even started.

John Bercow: My right hon. Friend looks and sounds sad, which, I am bound to say, is an unedifying spectacle for me and, indeed, the House. He has a naturally suspicious mind; is he inherently suspicious--I am not expressing such suspicion myself--of the concept of the commissioner? Or does he need to express a personal interest, as this is a case of frustrated ambition? Would he not be a magnificent commissioner exercising his functions with skill, wisdom and elan?

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend tempts me, but the answer is no. Until I am much more satisfied with the viability and acceptability of the role, I would not want to be a candidate for it. However, I confess to being suspicious and become even more so when I hear the Minister and, regrettably, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), glorying, nay, wallowing in consensus.

Angela Browning: I remind my right hon. Friend that, in Committee, Conservative Members made sensible, practical proposals, which the Government have now accepted. I hope that he appreciates that consensus was not built in Committee; the Conservative party guided the Government along the route down which we are pleased they have now gone.

Eric Forth: I am half reassured by that, as my hon. Friend is talking about effective opposition, in which I believe and which I wish was exercised more often. I take her reassurance at face value, but I have doubts about my party urging a commissioner on us. The good news is that I am reassured that effective opposition forced the Government to see what my hon. Friends obviously thought was sense. However, the not so good news is that it was not sense at all. We are therefore almost back where we started.
	The matter is proceeding in a spirit of co-operation and is about to reach the statute book; there has been a measure of agreement. I accept that right hon. and hon. Members from Wales want such a provision; they think that it is needed and will be beneficial. As a Member representing an English constituency, I shall suspend my judgment. We must see how the commissioner works over, I hope, a lengthy period. We in England may decide that the post is a good idea but, equally, we may decide that it is not; that will depend very much on the way in which the commissioner, whoever he or she is, exercises the extensive powers that we are giving him or her, including the extension of powers in this group of amendments that we are now, apparently, about to approve.
	I want to put down that marker or reservation, as we should not rush such things. If we are about to enter a new era of commissioners--if this is the new Britain in the 21st century and new millennium--and commissioners are the answer to all the problems that confront us, I, for one, am extremely uneasy. I want us to treat each case carefully on its merits and watch extremely closely the way in which the balance of powers and responsibilities is exercised. I worry about the lack of accountability and what, I suspect, are inadequate opportunities for scrutiny and holding commissioners to account. I hope that my hon. Friends and even the Government will keep those matters under consideration before we rush headlong into a world that will be dominated by commissioners, whose posts were set up for the best reasons but which may, in some cases, end in tears.

David Hanson: Generally, hon. Members--even the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)--have given a broad welcome to the amendments. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) made a valuable point about her backing and the strong support from children's charities in Wales and elsewhere for the amendments. I pay tribute to their efforts in promoting the measures that we are considering today. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) spoke strongly about those matters, and I welcome his support for the amendments.
	Briefly, in response to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), the key point of Lords amendment No. 4 is to tackle the very issues that she raised on behalf of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), who is retiring. It will empower the commissioner to consider any matter affecting the rights and welfare of children in Wales and make representations to the Assembly. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park rightly said, children in Wales will occasionally be sent to young offenders' institutions in England, but the commissioner will now be able to look at and monitor the performance of those institutions; he will also be able to make representations to the Assembly about whether it wishes to make representations to the Government about how they are impacting on children from Wales in those institutions. I hope that that answers her points; indeed, the amendment was introduced in response to those very concerns.
	The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) raised several issues. First, however, may I wish him and his wife Elinor well in retirement? I am acutely aware that, although he is retiring from the House of Commons, he will still be a Member of the National Assembly for Wales for the foreseeable future. I pay tribute to the work that he has done during his 27 years in the House; I acknowledge the efforts that he has made and the co-operation that we have achieved on some joint objectives. We have had differences, and will continue to do so, but he can be proud of things to which he has contributed during his time in the House.
	As I am mentioning retiring Members, I should also mention my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). He has not contributed to our debate but I know that he is proud to sit in the Chamber today for, possibly, the final time as a Member of Parliament. He has represented his constituency for 30 years, since 1971, and experienced the pain of defeat in 1970 in Cardiff, North, whose constituents he had served since 1966. I pay tribute to his work; I know that many Labour Members have welcomed his contributions, value his integrity and appreciate his work as a Minister; we are sorry to see him go. I make one prediction about the forthcoming election; Labour will hold Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.
	The right hon. Member for Caernarfon raised the question of international co-operation. He spoke about the possibility of children being abused in different countries and the difficulties that will arise. By virtue of this key amendment to the Bill, the commissioner will be able to consider any issue affecting children in Wales and make representations to the Assembly. If, for example, a child in Wales suffers abuse in another European country or, indeed, elsewhere in the world, the commissioner can make representations to the Assembly and, via that body, the Government about the way in which those rights and welfare issues can be tackled.
	The Government recognise the need for international co-operation and co-ordination in identifying child abusers to reduce the risks to children in this country and abroad. We are working, for example, with an Interpol specialist group on crimes against children and with the United Kingdom National Crime Squad. There are also bilateral negotiations and initiatives involving UK agencies and other countries, both in Europe and elsewhere, to tackle the issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman. Much of that will be an informal network, but the Government certainly recognise those issues.
	The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned that further technical amendments may be necessary as a result of the Lords amendments. I have looked into the matter and do not believe that they will. Obviously, we shall review the matter. If he wants in his last 48 or 60 hours as a Member of Parliament to write to me with details of his concerns, I shall certainly consider them and reflect on them in due course.
	I welcome, as ever, the contribution of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to the debate. I say to him what I said earlier: the Government will reflect on and consider the experiences in Wales. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), will be examining the matters, and the Government will reflect on them.

John Bercow: Where is the Minister of State?

David Hanson: I suspect that he is busy governing on behalf of the people of Britain. We speak for the Government as a whole.

John Bercow: There was a reason for my inquiry. I very much hope that the Minister of State will not be doing that for many minutes because he is supposed to be replying to my Adjournment debate.

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is possible to govern from Whitehall as well as from the House of Commons. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be here shortly to contribute to what might be quite a lengthy Adjournment debate if the business of the House is completed speedily.
	I very much welcome the Bill. It is historic and ground-breaking legislation. As the right hon. Member for Caernarfon said, it is the first Bill produced in partnership between the National Assembly and the Government. I very much welcome and appreciate the spirit in which the House and, indeed, the other place have considered the amendments. We have a particularly strong working relationship with the children's charities. I pay tribute to the officials of the National Assembly and of the Wales Office. I wish Peter Clarke, who has recently been appointed the first Children's Commissioner for Wales, every success, and look forward to working with him during--dare I say it--the new Parliament.
	Lords amendment agreed to
	Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6 agreed to

Armed Forces Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Ordered,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 9th January and 2nd April:

Consideration of Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

2. (1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.--[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Armed Forces Bill

Lords amendments considered

Clause 31
	 — 
	Extension of jurisdiction

Lords amendment: No. 1, leave out clause 31.

John Spellar: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 5 to 11.

John Spellar: Despite the official form of words, the Government very much regret losing such useful measures. The amendments remove from the Bill the whole of part IV, which deals with Ministry of Defence police, and all other references that are relevant to part IV.
	It is interesting to reflect that, only a few months ago, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) told the House during the debate on the Queen's Speech on 11 December that he welcomed the proposals on the MOD police. As I recall, he did not single out any other part of the Bill for favourable treatment. That positive reaction came as no great surprise to us. After all, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) had in April last year asked the Secretary of State for Defence:
	"if he will bring forward legislation to extend the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence Police to give them the same constabulary powers as the Home Office police".--[Official Report, 18 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 430W.]
	We did not go that far, but in that light, I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome our proposals. Indeed, he continued in the same vein on Second Reading on 9 January, when moving a reasoned amendment that did not mention the MOD police.

Edward Leigh: Is the hon. Gentleman therefore intending, if the Government are fortunate enough to be re-elected, to reintroduce the measures?

John Spellar: As always, we shall have to consider the availability of parliamentary time, as hon. Members know full well. That is why it is so unfortunate that the Opposition have behaved so disgracefully.

Robert Key: Before the Minister goes any further down that path, I should point out that it is not the Opposition who have contrived matters, but the Government who have conceded something in the other place. It is nonsense to rant about things that I said some years ago. Of course it is true that I wanted to extend the jurisdiction. We warned the Government that they were heading for trouble, but they would not listen and have had to climb down as a result. That is entirely the Minister's fault.

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman is disingenuous. Conservative Members in the other place blocked the measures at the instigation of Conservative Front Benchers in this House--despite what they have said to the MOD police and in the House and in Committee.
	In moving the reasoned amendment, the hon. Gentleman said on the proposal to extend the jurisdiction of the MOD police:
	"We broadly welcome that, although we will want to examine in depth the interface between the MOD, Home Office and military police and how the proposals will affect those relationships."
	That is quite right. He went on:
	"The alignment of the forces discipline procedures with those of Home Department police forces has taken a long time to achieve. We will need to ensure that the procedures will be satisfactory."--[Official Report, 9 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 905.]
	Rightly, the hon. Gentleman wanted to consider the matter. Indeed, a Select Committee deliberated on the Bill and produced a special report--which was agreed unanimously, without any amendment being moved by the Opposition, let alone defeated.
	The Select Committee said of the proposals:
	"We believe that there is a case for giving MDP officers greater powers than that of a citizen when they are attempting to deal with emergency situations which they come across in fulfilling their normal duties."
	That is absolutely right. It went on to say that
	"effective co-operation and co-ordination of activities between the MDP and local police forces is a matter fundamental to public confidence in policing. We welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that the revised Protocols, once agreed, will be published and made readily available to the general public."
	That is a broad welcome.
	The Select Committee also reported with approval that the witness for the Association of Chief Police Officers said that it
	"believed the legislation would improve the current position by providing clarity and transparency in what was currently 'a grey area'."
	Let us move to deliberations in Standing Committee. Clauses 31 and 32 were agreed without a Division. Let us move to 2 April and proceedings on Report. The Opposition divided on clause 31, suddenly opposing it, but chose not to divide on clause 32. When the Bill reached the other end of the Palace, their lordships, at the instigation of Conservative Front Benchers, blocked both useful measures.
	Let me describe what the measures aimed to achieve. They were modest adjustments to the jurisdiction of the MOD police in the light of experience since the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. In the professional assessment of MOD police themselves, gaps and other areas that needed to be improved had appeared. Far from being an agenda to expand the role of the force, the proposals were designed to enable it to operate effectively in meeting the demands placed on it.
	The proposals were also designed to ensure that individual MDP officers were not placed in the impossible position, when faced with an emergency, of choosing between refusing to assist or acting in a way that might leave them at risk of legal challenge. Such situations are now more likely to arise than in 1987, because individual MDP officers are expected to move frequently between different defence establishments in order to discharge their responsibilities at those establishments. Indeed, as I said, the Select Committee noted that
	"there is a case for giving MDP officers greater powers than that of a citizen when they are attempting to deal with emergency situations".
	The Lords amendments also propose that we lose clause 32 and, consequentially, schedule 5. Those provisions included important but completely uncontroversial proposals. As I have said throughout the Bill's passage, they would have made a significant difference to the administration of the Ministry of Defence police and enabled their disciplinary procedures to be brought into line with those of other police forces--which would, incidentally, have addressed the Opposition's apparent concern that ministerial involvement in the affairs of the Ministry of Defence police should be reduced. They would also have regularised the position of potential recruits who handle firearms during the assessment of their fitness for service and achieved the regime for statutory inspection of the Ministry of Defence police for which the Opposition pressed. Indeed, with the exception of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), they welcomed the relevant money resolution in the House, and we amended the Bill expressly to meet their concerns on that score.
	On Third Reading, the hon. Member for Salisbury spoke about visiting the MDP headquarters at Weathersfield and went on to say some warm words about the Ministry of Defence police. He said:
	"I look forward to visiting Weathersfield."
	He might want to leave a suitable interlude before doing so. He went on to say:
	"I have been invited and I shall certainly go, because I am convinced now that it is a mature police force and that its training is up to Home Office standard. Not only is it inspected by the Home Office constabularies, but it trains Home Office forces in a number of areas; we must dispel the myth. This is a criticism not of the police, but of the Government".--[Official Report, 2 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 125.]
	That is about playing party political games; it is not concern about effective policing.
	The way in which the Opposition have behaved is an insult to the Ministry of Defence police and to their fine representatives in the Defence Police Federation. We will hear much from Conservatives in the next few weeks about law and order and their opposition to crime, but what do they do when a modest proposal is made in that regard? They block it in order to play political games. I am not sure whether that is due to the general election or whether the Opposition spokesman on defence, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, who is not present, is trying to bolster up his credentials for the only election in which Conservative Members are interested: that which will occur after the general election, when they choose a new Leader of the Opposition.

Robert Key: I invite the Minister to calm down. He is looking awfully red and flustered. Indeed, I cannot remember when I last heard so much bluster and fluster from a Minister. If he cannot handle his own business in the House better, I shudder to think what would happen if he were ever to manage a crisis. He has just presented us with the most withered fig leaf that I have seen a Minister use for some time, in an attempt to cover up his own inadequacy. It is astonishing that he believes that the Opposition can block a measure either in the other place or in this House. The Government still have an enormous majority--for the time being. I hope that he will consider these matters slightly more rationally. After all, he revealed that he does not know what is going on in Scotland in respect of the Scottish brigades. He seems also to be unaware of what is happening in his Department. I hope, therefore, that we can approach the debate a little more rationally.
	We welcome the amendments. It is entirely the Government's fault that they have got themselves tied up in knots. For a start, they need not have opted to have an election now at all: it is a year early. The Prime Minister has cut and run, which has caused the problem. I was not privy to negotiations in the other place, but I know that Cross Benchers expressed serious concern. It must have been serious, if the Government were prepared to cave in so quickly there. They did not take the matter to the wire. They did not try very hard or even press for a Division. It is no good the Minister blustering; he failed to negotiate in the House of Lords and was not prepared to press the matter.
	Let us get the record straight. The Ministry of Defence police have their proud origins back in the days of Samuel Pepys. They are a great security service. It was a Conservative Government who delivered the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987, as a result of a careful and thorough report that was produced for the Ministry of Defence. The report was specific about the limits of the Ministry of Defence police. We have just spent some three months in Committee exploring the issue of jurisdiction. We were convinced that jurisdiction was being reasonably extended. We have no quarrel with that, but we voted in the final stages of the Bill's passage through this House against the clauses standing part of the Bill. I explained our reasons then and I do not want to repeat them now.

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition voted against the clauses. Will he confirm that they voted against clause 31, but not clause 32?

Robert Key: That is correct. We thought that it was important to make the point. We wanted to make it clear that we had reservations about the Bill. Our concern related not to jurisdiction, but to the way in which the provisions were introduced.

John Spellar: In that case, why did the Opposition oppose clause 32 as well as clause 31 in the other place, at the hon. Gentleman's behest?

Robert Key: I have already said that I was not privy to the negotiations in the other place, which is independent of this House. That is what the Government have never managed to understand. They do not realise that the House of Lords is independent; the Conservative party in the Lords does not take instructions from the House of Commons. [Interruption.] The Minister can snigger, but their attitude to the Lords symbolises everything that is wrong with this rotten Government and the way in which they have eroded the democracy of Parliament for the past four years.
	For four years, this Labour Government knew that they could have introduced in a measured way the legislation that was necessary to increase the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence police, but they chose not to do so. In the end, they were bounced into it, and we heard about that only because of the incautious remarks that the out-going former chief constable of the Ministry of Defence police made in response to last autumn's fuel protests, when his service was caught without being able to provide proper police cover. That was the motive for tacking the clauses on to the Bill.
	For four years, the Government could have done something sensible. They could have waited for the first of the quinquennial reviews, which has been under way since last October and with which the Ministry of Defence police have been fully engaged. They could have considered the review, done a proper job and then introduced a Bill. The fact is, however, that after four years they have failed to deliver. Ministers have let down more than 3,000 Ministry of Defence policemen and their families. Those people are doing a thoroughly professional job--that is not in question--but they have a different regime. They do not have the standard disciplinary procedures of the Home Office police force, but they should have, and that is what the Opposition have been asking for. We gave the Government the benefit of the doubt in the House of Commons, but the Lords said that they were not convinced.
	It is important to stress that we are not opposed in principle to the extension of the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence police. The more that we scrutinised the clauses, however, the more that we realised that they were a stop-gap, piecemeal response to the fuel protests. We will undertake a review of the role of the Ministry of Defence police. Indeed, I might say that we will do so in government, in a few weeks' time.
	I think that the Minister has overlooked the problem of disciplinary procedures, which remain without a statutory basis. He has also overlooked the concerns that have been expressed by hon. Members from all parties, including his own, about the problem of protocols between the Home Office police forces and the Ministry of Defence police. We were told by the Ministry of Defence that there would be standing arrangements at a high level that would be subject not to legislation or even to statutory instruments, but to deals made between the Ministry of Defence and Home Office police forces after the Bill was enacted.
	We also raised severe and difficult issues about jurisdiction over civilians and about increasing investigation of serious crime by the Ministry of Defence police. I have no quarrel with that, as it is a natural evolution of the service that they provide. They have shown that they perform to the highest Home Office standards, which is why I accepted the invitation to go to Weathersfield. I think that the Minister might be surprised, as he seems to think that every Ministry of Defence policeman will suddenly be outraged that the Government backed down in the Lords. What will outrage the Ministry of Defence police is the fact that he has caved in and is now trying to shift the blame.
	Above all, we raised serious issues about the accountability of the Ministry of Defence police and the transparency of their operations and their relationship with Ministers. We also asked about the independence or otherwise of a chief constable, who can be "instructed" by a Minister--the very word that the Minister used in the Chamber today in answer to a parliamentary question.
	The aspect of the Bill that we are considering is a fiasco of the Government's making. We look forward to reverting to the matter as soon as possible. I can understand why the Minister is a little scratchy about it; he probably hoped to be back in his constituency campaigning by now. However, parliamentary democracy and proper scrutiny have been well served by their lordships' action yesterday. I do not know why the Minister and his colleagues in another place caved in, but that is what they did.
	We shall support the Ministry of Defence police on the ground as we have always done. We look forward to the return of the subject that we have been considering.

Jenny Tonge: Before the debate, I was told that the Government had graciously agreed in another place to drop the relevant clauses. I therefore feel that I have wandered into a hornet's nest without much armour to protect me from the stings.
	I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). The Government must accept that there are serious reservations about military police invasion, if I may use that word, of civilian territory. It is important to deal with the matter in much more detail, and at leisure, not in a great hurry at the end of a Parliament.
	Some people cynically expressed the view that lack of civilian police has led the Government to believe that it might be helpful if the military police moved into their territory. The Government must therefore accept that there are genuine reservations about the provisions, calm down and reflect on them after the election.
	Lords amendment agreed to
	Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to

Clause 37
	 — 
	Orders and regulations

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 36, line 33, at end insert--
	"( ) an order under section 8(2),"

John Spellar: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	After considering the order-making powers in the Bill, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in another place recommended that the power in clause 8 should be subject to affirmative procedure. The relevant order-making power will allow the Secretary of State to prescribe the powers and duties of a judicial officer when undertaking a review of a commanding officer's decision to authorise a search without a warrant.
	We are happy to accommodate the Select Committee's recommendation, and the amendment achieves that. I should like to place on record the Government's thanks to the Committee for its customary careful consideration.

Robert Key: The amendment improves the Bill's accountability and transparency, and we welcome it.
	Lords amendment agreed to
	Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 11 agreed to

Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Ordered,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 23rd January and 8th February:

Consideration of Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

2. (1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.--[Mr. Clelland.]

Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 3
	 — 
	Special provision for roll-overs

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 5, line 5, leave out
	"(assuming it to be exercisable at that time)"

Stephen Timms: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 2.

Stephen Timms: As hon. Members know, the Bill forms part of the Government's response to companies' legitimate anxieties about the effects of aligning income tax and national insurance treatment of employee share options. We debated the matter with great care during earlier stages of the Bill's passage.
	In Committee in the House of Lords, the Government tabled a small number of amendments. Lords amendment No. 1 would clear up a possible misreading of the rules. We were worried about the rules for an option that had not vested by 7 November 2000 or was in a holding period that prevented its exercise. It might have been possible to argue that, because the option could not be exercised on that date, a nil charge should arise under the Bill. That was clearly not the Bill's intention, and the simplest way of clarifying the matter was to omit some words from clause 3 and add an overall provision to clause 5, which is the interpretation clause. That provision would apply to the whole measure.
	I am grateful to the specialists outside the House who drew our attention to the possible difficulty. I am pleased that it was possible to agree the helpful amendment in another place.

Howard Flight: We support the amendment and the Bill, which are both remedial measures. I remind hon. Members that the Bill is a consequence of a Labour stealth tax on options and constitutes the third attempt to solve the resultant problems.
	In April 1999, the Government introduced the employers' national insurance charge at 12.2 per cent. on the gains realised on the exercise of unapproved options. They were taken aback because many small businesses, especially new businesses, could have been landed with unknown, potentially damaging cash liabilities. The Government wisely responded to that and, in May 2000, introduced measures to enable companies to transfer their employers' NIC liability to the employee. However, there was a problem, because that created a 47.3 per cent. tax charge on exercising unapproved options. Again, the Government forgot the options that were issued between April 1999 and May 2000. The Bill therefore introduced a provision that limited the gain on which NIC was payable to the increase in value between exercise and 7 November last year.
	As the Financial Secretary said, outside specialists have pored over the Bill usefully and in depth. It is not unfair to say that, initially, the Bill was not technically well drafted. I give the Government credit for accepting most of the key amendments that we tabled to increase the notice period to 92 days and remove the unnecessary provision to give notice when no NIC arose.
	Clause 3 remained the controversial provision, which tackled the technically difficult territory of the roll-over of options in takeovers. In Committee, the Opposition stressed that the clauses were not satisfactorily drafted. On Report, we were not happy with the redrafts that the Government proposed. As the Financial Secretary said, the amendments are the result of substantial consultation with the relevant officials during the Bill's progress in another place, especially Lords amendment No. 1, which was designed to clarify a specific point. We support the amendments and the Bill, which has made the best of a bad job on which the Government should not have embarked.
	The result is that we now have an extremely unattractive share option regime, particularly for small companies. The enterprise management incentive scheme is fine for small businesses worth up to £15 million, but for the important group of businesses valued up to £100 million unapproved option schemes have to be used. A scheme that charges 43.6 per cent. tax on gains realised is, as the Government's own small business expert said, punitive. It places companies in this country in a highly uncompetitive position, given the arrangements in the United States.
	For that group of companies, the most appropriate share option scheme is the approved share option scheme, which is a capital gains tax regime. That is why the Conservative party is committed to increasing the limit per person from £30,000 to £100,000 for companies valued up to £100 million participating in the approved share option scheme. That is designed to solve the whole problem created by the imposition of NICs on approved options.
	We are relieved that the Bill is to reach the statute book in the dying embers of this Parliament. It is remedial and helpful to British commerce.

Stephen Timms: I should like to respond to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), although I must say that I found his tone disappointingly churlish.
	I remind the House that we are giving companies the chance to settle their national insurance liabilities on options granted in advance of the date when a gain is made by the employee. Companies that choose to take advantage of that will calculate the amount of national insurance due by reference to the accrued gain up to 7 November 2000--the date before the proposals were announced.
	This measure effectively caps the national insurance contribution liability by reference to a company's share price on 7 November. The benefits to the company are that it will be able to remove the on-going provision for the liability on its balance sheet, thus achieving certainty, and save national insurance contribution costs in relation to any further upward movement of the share price.
	I do not accept the criticism made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs about the drafting of the Bill. The Bill has benefited from substantial consultation with a wide range of people who follow these matters closely and I am pleased that we have been able to take on board their suggestions and proposals. We are a listening Government, as the Bill demonstrates clearly.
	The question has been raised as to whether we have chosen an appropriate date--7 November 2000 was the day before the proposals were announced in the pre-Budget report. A date had to be chosen for crystallising the gains, and 7 November may turn out to be a favourable date for many of the companies using the measure.
	It is not obvious how an optimal date could be found because it is impossible to predict how long the fall in high-technology share prices--a precipitative fall--will continue. Setting a later date could conceivably disadvantage many companies that have planned to use the measure based on the previously announced date of 7 November. Some 550 companies have already expressed an interest in taking advantage of this legislation and any change in the date would risk upsetting their business plans. Companies whose share price has risen since November 2000--there are some such companies--could lose out if the date were changed.
	Another problem with moving the date forward is that it could disadvantage unquoted companies that have commenced plans to float subsequent to the 7 November date. Companies whose shares were not readily convertible assets on 7 November 2000 would have their liability on the gap options extinguished as a result of the Bill. They would have to reassess whether their shares were readily convertible assets on the new date and might find themselves having to pay special or class 1 contributions as a result.
	Using the prospective date--that suggestion has certainly been made in our debates on this matter--would unfortunately give rise to national insurance avoidance opportunities. It would also leave companies little time to consider the effect of this measure on their national insurance liability.
	Another possibility that has been considered is giving companies a choice of two dates. That would present serious problems, especially given the roll-over provisions in the Bill. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs has played a helpful role in this process and I am happy to put on the record my appreciation of the good deal of helpful comment that he has made on a number of the provisions. A moment ago, he drew attention to the complex character of the roll-over provisions. If we were to proceed with a choice of two dates, he could imagine, probably better than anyone else in the House, how complicated that would become. It is not an attractive proposal.

John Bercow: I do not want this to become an exchange purely between what might be described as roll-over anoraks. I am in the somewhat unfortunate position of not having the extensive knowledge of these matters with which the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) are blessed. I therefore wonder whether it would be in order, as well as being helpful to the House, if the Minister were either to dilate upon, or at any rate animadvert to, those roll-over provisions in some modest detail.

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that generous invitation. What I can best do is refer him to clause 3, the character of which has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will see that the clause is called "Special provision for roll-overs" and there are three pages on the subject. If his perusal of the clause gives rise to any questions in his mind, I should be happy to address those. We looked at the clause in some detail in Committee and I am confident that it is now in good order and has benefited from the critical examination that it received.
	Let me explain briefly to the hon. Gentleman what happens when an option that has been settled is subsequently rolled over. Where options were granted during the relevant period and rolled over after that, the settlement will relate only to the part of the gain on the new option that relates to the original. Provided that the options are rolled over at parity, the national insurance contribution will remain settled. Where a roll-over is not at parity, the amount of the gain on the new option relating to the amount in excess of parity at the time of the roll-over will be subject to class 1 national insurance contributions under the existing rules.
	If the new option comprises additional shares that are in excess of the market value of the shares subject to the original option at the time of the roll-over, they will be liable to class 1 national insurance contributions on any gain arising on exercise of the additional shares.

John Bercow: The Minister is doing his best to respond to the request that I put to him. As he knows, I do not lightly pay tribute to him, but I am bound to say that his explanation thus far has been comprehensive, racy and--dare I say it?--even intoxicating. I am concerned, as I know he is, about fiscal and fiduciary responsibility. I know that we are coming to an election, but he should bear it in mind that, when I am in Buckingham town centre on Saturday, my constituents will not be able to cope with a detailed explanation. However, they will ask about what he said on the exercise of fiduciary responsibility in relation to the amendment.

Stephen Timms: It is a shame that I shall be unable to listen in on those conversations on Saturday morning, but the hon. Gentleman should tell his constituents that all the actions of the Government have been marked by prudence. That is certainly the case in this connection. It will not assist the House if I proceed much further with our discussion, but I am pleased and grateful to the hon. Gentleman that we have been able to cover the matter in the way that we have.
	The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs referred to the proposals in the Conservative manifesto. I say to him that the problem is that the sums simply do not add up, and that will become apparent in the days ahead.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Clause 5
	 — 
	Interpretation

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 8, line 34, leave out "this section" and insert
	"the provisions of this Act".

Stephen Timms: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	This second change, which is probably less racy than the first, will bring the Bill within the ambit of part I of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, which is the main social security legislation. Without the amendment, we would be unable to use the existing administrative procedures in the main Act to introduce the regulations to be made under the Bill. That problem was spotted by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee of the other place, and I am grateful to it for that. I am glad to have the opportunity to put my thanks on record, and I am confident that the House will support the amendment.

Howard Flight: I also support the amendment. Furthermore, I make it clear to the Minister that we support it and the Bill because they solve a problem, but, as I tried to make clear earlier, imposing additional stealth taxes on unapproved share options is a mistake.
	I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that, when he talks to his small business people in the high street, he should point out that the issue is that unapproved options are no longer of any great use in giving people incentives and procuring good management from large companies that can afford to pay them more. People will not take lower pay and the chance of making unknown gains that depend on how the business performs if they have to pay 47.3 per cent. tax on those unknown gains. They will almost certainly stay in a safe job with the Government or a large company.
	It is a great pity that a Government who put so much spin on wanting to support entrepreneurship and making this country achieve as well as the United States does should go down such a path. I am churlish not about the Bill, but about the cause of needing it in the first place.
	Lords amendment agreed to.

Diabetes

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Clelland.]

John Bercow: It is a pleasure and a privilege to introduce the last Adjournment debate of this Parliament, and it is a particular and unexpected pleasure to do so in the knowledge that the Minister for Public Health will reply to it. If memory serves me correctly, and I am woefully faulty in those matters, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are well aware, I first locked horns with the Minister on the BBC's "Any Questions?" on 21 November 1997. We have periodically jousted since, and it is a delight, albeit a surprise to her as well as to me, to see her in the House today.
	The treatment of diabetes is a subject of the greatest importance, and interest in it in the House has been reflected since 1 May 1997 in six oral questions, 110 written questions, 14 early-day motions, three of which were tabled this Session, and no fewer than three Adjournment debates, each of was initiated by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). They took place on 20 November 1997, 4 March 1998 and 30 November 1999.
	In preparation for today's debate, I have received useful briefings from a number of individuals: the public affairs officer of Diabetes UK, Mr. Peter Bainbridge; the honorary secretary of the Aylesbury and district branch of Diabetes UK, Mr. Tony Ibotson; the marketing director of leading diabetes pharmaceutical operation Novo Nordisk, Mr. Adrian Haigh; and the House of Commons Library science and environment specialist on these matters, Dr. Alex Sleator.
	What is diabetes? It occurs when there is an excess of glucose or sugar in the body, such that it cannot be used properly. People will probably be aware, and by the end of the debate they ought to know, that there are two main types of diabetes. The more severe version of the disease causes its victims to be dependent on regular supplies of insulin. That is called type 1 diabetes, from which approximately 20 per cent. of sufferers suffer. The other 80 per cent.--between 1 million and 1.2 million people--have been diagnosed as suffering from type 2, which is less serious, though still a worrying and painful affliction. Those individuals are not dependent on insulin and they can be treated by a combination of good diet, tablets and occasional provision of insulin.
	We are discussing not only the 1.4 million people who have, as I advisedly said, been diagnosed as suffering from diabetes, but the large number of people--about 1 million--who suffer from the condition in ignorance of the fact. The Minister will know that, on average, people suffer from the disease for seven years before it is diagnosed, though it can be as many as 10 before diagnosis takes place. I shall come to the serious consequences of late diagnosis and, therefore, the corollary of it--the absence for several years of any treatment for the condition.
	What causes diabetes? In truth, despite the many studies that have been conducted over a long period in this country and elsewhere, we do not know for certain what causes the condition. However, we do know that certain identifiable factors seem to provoke it. One is heredity. There is often a family history that can be regarded if not as a certain, but as a reliable predictor of someone getting this ghastly disease. A second factor is age. People over 40 are more likely to get it. Overweight--obesity, to give it its modern term--is also a significant cause of diabetes. In addition, we know from empirical evidence that there is, regrettably, a propensity to develop diabetes in the black and Asian communities. It is a truly horrifying fact that one in four Asians over the age of 60 suffer from the disease.
	The symptoms of untreated diabetes are unpleasant. They range from extreme thirst to excessive tiredness to frequent urination to severe weight loss to genital itching and to blurred vision. The effects, as distinct from the symptoms, of untreated diabetes are even worse. To avoid doubt, and so that people realise the significance of the problem that we are confronting, let me spell those out. They are heart disease, kidney failure, amputation and, ultimately, blindness.
	It is a not a common or garden disease to which we should not give much attention. People often imagine that it is not too serious. They think that it is regrettable and involves some inconvenience, but that it is not a big deal in overall medical terms. I want to emphasise that diabetes is a big deal. It is a big deal in terms of the number of people who suffer from one or other variant of it; it is a very big deal in terms of the costs to the national health service in its diagnosis and treatment; and it is a very big challenge for Governments and, indeed, all parliamentarians to do what they can to address the problem.
	It is the significance of the disease that has propelled Diabetes UK to issue a challenge to Members of Parliament in all political parties to sign up to its pledge to recognise that diabetes is a serious disease, to appreciate the importance of early diagnosis--which is accomplished, not least, through early and comprehensive screening programmes--and to accept that each and every diabetes sufferer has a right to receive the best possible treatment available, irrespective of who he or she is, where that person comes from or what particular complications of the disease he or she experiences.
	We are in possession of recent and valuable research, which is a result of work carried out in November 1999 by the Audit Commission. The findings were published in April 2000. The study makes salutary and alarming reading. It found that there were huge disparities--as much as fourfold--between the number of clinicians available in some parts of the country relative to others for the treatment of diabetes. The Audit Commission also found that there were substantial variations in the referral patterns in relation to the disease. There does not seem to be a consistency of practice between one area and another.
	The quality of hospital care is variable. That is not because of a lack of will, but because of a significant disparity in the number of expert clinicians available to treat those suffering from the disease. There is also a problem at primary care level, where there is a major gulf between the expertise and understanding of some general practitioners and others.
	So far as the sufferers are concerned, there are great differences in the level of education and understanding of the disease. Some people have a great understanding of it and know how best to minimise the symptoms and to improve their quality of life. Others, sadly, have not been well informed and are ill aware of what they can do to help themselves and how to seek expert and professional help from others.
	We face a serious and growing problem. About 2.5 per cent. of the population suffer from diabetes. The threat--I do not want to be alarmist, but merely to interpret the facts available--is that that will increase in the coming years and 3 per cent. or more might suffer from one or other of the variants of the disease. That leads me, in the short time that I intend to detain the House, to highlight several challenges that I should like to put to the Government.
	The Government are formulating a national service framework for the treatment of diabetes. I welcome that and am anxious, as I think everyone of good will in the House will be, to ensure that it best caters to those who suffer now, and offers the maximum hope of prevention and deterrence of the disease. I have three specific inquiries on the national service framework. The first relates to diabetic retinopathy. That phrase does not readily trip off my tongue because I am not expert in such matters. However, it is important that we do not allow complex medical terms to obscure the significance of the subject.
	The strong body of opinion says that there should be regular screening for diabetic retinopathy on, for example, an annual basis, which is a modest suggestion. I am not entirely clear whether the Government have decided that that should be a headline objective and written commitment of the national service framework. The framework has yet to be published and I am not expecting the Minister to share all its details on the Floor of the House in advance of its publication, although debates are, regrettably, sometimes the best way to maintain a state secret. However, it would be helpful to hear about the kernel of the Government's thinking.
	My second inquiry relates to the need to have a regular and comprehensive screening programme, which Diabetes UK also wants. That does not have to be of the whole population, because that would be superfluous and extortionately expensive, but of the groups that are most at risk. They are, indeed, known as the at-risk groups. Specialist opinion suggests that a regular screening programme could be invaluable in reducing the incidence of the disease. Do the Government intend to go ahead with such a programme? If they do, how is it to be implemented, what resources are to be made available and within what time scale will the objective be accomplished?
	Thirdly, I should like to get a feel about how the Government envisage the balance will lie between the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors in the treatment of the disease. I mentioned the variable pattern of hospital provision--some good, some bad, some indifferent. Do they think that the volume of resources consumed in hospital care of sufferers should continue and be extended, or--as I suspect might be the case--are they thinking in terms of greater provision through general practitioner services? I shall be gentle, because I am always understated in such matters, but if the Government have the latter in mind, do they intend to put their money where their mouth is to extend training for general practitioners and provide specialist back-up services to complement the work of GPs in the localities?
	Clearly, there will be cost and training implications. If we accept that the treatment of this disease will be multi-faceted, co-operation and co-ordination between the various sectors will be required. The treatment of diabetes is a complicated equation. No one suggests that it can all be dealt with in hospital or at general practitioner level. What is to be done about the shortage of specialist nurses, when is it to be done and how can we be reassured?
	I want to refer to the guidelines produced by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence on two drugs that have been recognised as having a potential benefit and palliative impact--pioglitazone and rosiglitazone. Those drugs are of some significance, because they have been given a nudge and a recommendation by NICE and because, to be effective, they require sufferers to have a considerable knowledge and understanding of the disease.
	I am well aware that those drugs are not suitable for all sufferers. They will probably be of little use to the many sufferers who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of how best to minimise their burden. However, the medical experts suggest that if people know quite a lot about their condition--they may have suffered from it for a long time and have taken advice--those drugs can be of value to them.
	It is only fair to note the great difference between the usage of those two drugs in this country and elsewhere. I am not making a partisan point, because that has been the position under successive Governments of both political persuasions. A tiny fraction of sufferers of type 2 diabetes use one or other of them. Perhaps we should be ashamed of our performance, or perhaps there are good reasons to explain the differential about which I shall shortly be enlightened by the Minister.
	The lower usage of those drugs in this country than elsewhere provides food for thought. Do the Government intend to develop their take-up and use? If so, can we be sure that it is more than just an early pledge, as there will be a resource implication? Do the Government intend, in the very short time available to them before they make way for my hon. Friends and me to take over from them, to provide the resources consistent with adequate provision? I am sure that we are about to be enlightened by the hon. Lady, and that is an enticing prospect for me.
	Funding is available through the Medical Research Council for important studies on the causes of diabetes, its incidence and the means by which it can be effectively controlled. In 1998-99, about £3.5 million was made available for that purpose, and in 1999-2000 the figure was about £6.5 million, which was a substantial increase. I do not cavil at that. Those resources would probably have been used to good effect, but I should like to be clear that a continuing value-for-money study is taking place. Are there benchmarks or yardsticks for future research? Is the availability of resources tied to an improvement in the findings of the MRC studies?
	What can we expect in practical terms? We are all prone to talk about inputs. We are entirely justified in doing so, but what interests sufferers of this disease, as of others, and their families is not input, but output. What are the results? How are we improving? Are we detecting the disease earlier? Are we preventing it thereby? Are we treating it more effectively? Are we reducing its incidence? Can we hold out the prospect of a diabetes-free age, or at least of an age in which its incidence is dramatically reduced?
	Finally, I should like to refer to insulin pumps. The usage of insulin pumps is also relatively low in this country--the figure is about 0.5 per cent.--by comparison with practice elsewhere. In Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United States, usage by sufferers in the relevant category is 5 per cent. I am uncertain about what the Government have in mind.
	In a consultation paper issued in July last year, Ministers said that it would be good if the expert reference group conducted research to see whether wider use of insulin pumps would be effective. Curiously, on 26 February this year, in a written answer to the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said that no comprehensive evaluation of insulin pumps had taken place, and that no specific guidance had been issued. Is that the Government's final position, or do they intend to do something about it?
	There is a need for a vision, for a series of practical steps and, by way of reassurance and encouragement to sufferers, for an indication of a time scale within which these important objectives will be accomplished. I look forward immensely to what the Minister has to say.
	I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence. I want to pay tribute to the parliamentary and political giant of our times, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who is present for the final time in this Chamber. It is 51 years and three months since he was first elected to the House. I know that he does not want to be embarrassed by excessive effusions from his lifelong political enemies, but a modest dose of embarrassment does no harm to anyone's health, and what I say to him is sincerely meant. The term is much abused and much over-used in our political life, but he is genuinely a great man.

Tony Benn: I was not expecting the hon. Gentleman's comments. There will be no report of his speech in the press. His speech could in no way be linked to the election campaign. It was a scholarly speech about a matter of great interest. The Minister will reply, and it will be a good debate. When people say that Parliament has lost the confidence of the people, it is in part because they do not know that conscientious Members raise important questions and receive proper replies. Hansard is the only newspaper that will record his speech, but I shall long remember it.

John Bercow: That was typically gracious of the right hon. Gentleman. I agree with him about the central point. The longer one is in this place--I have been here only four years and 10 days--the more one appreciates that the vast majority of Members of Parliament on both sides of the House are honest, conscientious, decent and hard working. The activities of the recalcitrant minority tend to besmirch the good name of the majority. It would be fatal for democracy if the profession of politics, which is a perfectly noble calling, were ultimately to be brought into disrepute.
	The right hon. Gentleman is the particular champion of principle in politics, but sitting below him is the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who has been a similarly principled, steadfast, dedicated and selfless representative of his constituents over a long period, and I wish him a long and enjoyable retirement.
	There is no doubt in my mind that MPs have real opportunities to raise important issues on behalf of their constituents. This is one such opportunity. In concluding and in looking forward to the Minister's reply, I want to say that there is no greater privilege for any Briton than to be a Member of Parliament. Every day, when I come into the Palace of Westminster and take my seat in the Chamber--which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, I do with monotonous regularity--I have a glint in my eye, a spring in my step and a feeling of tremendous gratitude for what my constituents have given me the opportunity to do.

Peter Emery: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) for his speech. Four years and 10 days it may have been, but during that time my hon. Friend has earned himself a reputation as the terrier of the Opposition. One factor in that, which he was able to prove today, is that he is a very serious politician who has learned his trade well. As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) observed, the case that my hon. Friend presented needs to be publicised much more widely, but when we look up at the Press Gallery we see that not one member of the press is there. That is a great shame, and it was never the case when the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and I were first in the House.
	I want to make two points about my hon. Friend's speech. The tragedy that can be generated by this illness is frequently misunderstood or, indeed, not known. Many Members will remember my colleague, Sir Peter Hordern. His son, whose condition was unknown to the family, suddenly suffered a loss of insulin and became unconscious. Still four years later, he needs 24-hour nursing. He cannot speak, and has very little control over himself. Given whose son he is, his background enabled him to be looked after earlier and, luckily, subsequently; but his condition is a terrifying indication of how ghastly the effects of the disease can be. That is why I wanted to underline what was said by my hon. Friend.
	The second case I want to raise concerns an employee whose seven-year-old son suddenly fell ill during a school trip. Fortunately, he was quickly diagnosed as being diabetic, has since been stabilised and is now back at school, and even able to play games. If the disease is dealt with properly, it is possible to get on top of it. Nevertheless, I ask the Minister to pay particular attention to the need to provide more information about the treatment of very young diabetics: if a young child has to have injections from the age of six, seven or eight, for the rest of his or her life, it is a terrifying worry for the parents and a ghastly situation for the patient. I should like an assurance that the national health service pays particular attention to cases where diabetes hits youngsters.
	Finally, let me pay tribute to tens of thousands of people in Poplar, where the Labour votes were weighed and only mine were counted. I also thank those in Lincoln, where I had my first contact with Lady Boothroyd, as she now is. She was then aide to the sitting Member, Geoffrey de Freitas. I pay tribute also to my erstwhile colleague--I describe him as a colleague, although we were on opposite sides of the House--"Mik" Mikardo. I was able to defeat him in Reading in 1959, unfortunately for him but fortunately for me. He was then a vice-chairman of the Labour party, and when 1964 came around he would undoubtedly have been included in Mr. Wilson's Government. I defeated him, however, and he was out of Parliament for four years. Members on my side often made "reds under the bed" accusations about him, but most were massively exaggerated. He was a very solid Member of Parliament, and a very good constituency Member.
	Lastly, I pay tribute to my constituents in Honiton and lovely East Devon, who have been kind enough to add 34 years to the seven during which I represented Reading. I am so lucky to have been given this opportunity. I thank not just those who voted for me, but many who, having not done so, have supported some of the work that I have done and tried to do in the House.
	When people come here, they must remember that not everyone can become a Minister; only a limited number will do so. Members of Parliament have a vast job to do, in many different ways. As most Members know, I have concentrated largely on procedure. Since 1984 I have been associated with the effort to ensure that we can consider legislation more thoroughly, more simply and more properly. That aim has not yet been accomplished, but I pray that it may happen in the next Parliament.
	The benefit that can be conferred by good Members of Parliament not seeking to be Ministers but doing their proper job in the House of Commons is very real. I am most grateful to have been given that opportunity: I am a very lucky man.

John Hutton: I apologise to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), and to you, Mr. Speaker, for missing the opening of the debate. There is a general election campaign going on, and I am afraid that I got involved somewhere else. I know that the hon. Gentleman was looking forward to hearing from the Minister for Public Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), which he described as an enticing prospect. He is probably less enticed by the prospect of my response, but perhaps we can discuss that outside.
	I echo the tribute paid to the hon. Gentleman by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). All of us who have had the privilege of sitting on the Labour Benches during this Parliament have become used to hearing the hon. Gentleman's lucid and assiduous explanations of his points. When he speaks about issues such as this, in the spirit in which he has spoken today, it is hard to find a word with which any Labour Member could disagree--although when he speaks about political issues, most of us tend to recoil. I know that he will not be offended by that.

John Bercow: I am delighted. It is a compliment.

John Hutton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is delighted, and will understand the spirit in which the compliment was paid.
	Before I respond to the points made in the hon. Gentleman's thoughtful and--as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said--scholarly speech, let me pay tribute to two of my colleagues who are present, and who are retiring at the election. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has made an outstanding contribution to this country's politics for many years. He is committed, as we all are, to the cause of democratic socialism, and cares deeply about the health and well-being of the party that has given him--and all Labour Members--such a wonderful opportunity to speak up for the people and to defend the principles and values that we hold so dear.
	The same is true in spades of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who is a fellow Cumbrian Member and who is held in the deepest respect throughout Cumbria for the work that he has done over 20 years in representing his constituency with fantastic skill and dedication. I think that I speak for all of us here today, certainly for all Labour Members, when I say that I find it hard to believe that those two outstanding individuals will not be with us in the new Parliament to support the work of, I hope, a radical and reforming Labour Government, whom I hope will be elected on 7 June. I extend my warmest best wishes to my hon. Friends for the future and look forward, as I am sure we all do, to hearing their continuing contribution to the political debate in our society.
	I also pay tribute to the work of the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who, as he reminded the House, was elected to this place in 1959--I was three years old at the time. One of the things that has always struck me about this place is the continuity between the generations, which speaks volumes not only for this place, but for the people who serve here. We get a bad press. Some of it is justified, but those of us who know about Parliament and the House of Commons would not want to call into question the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to this place and his service in the cause of parliamentary democracy. It is a distinguished record and I am happy to pay tribute to it.

Andrew MacKinlay: The right hon. Gentleman keeps a very good wine cellar, too.

John Hutton: I have no knowledge of that. Perhaps in the light of my comments, I might get to sample some in the near future.

Peter Emery: I extend an invitation to the Minister now.

John Hutton: Great--your place or mine?
	I also pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman's wife, Lady Emery, with whom I have had dealings in my role as Minister with responsibility for social services, and who has done outstanding work with the International Social Service, which is a fantastic organisation. She has been a marvellous advocate and champion for what it does.
	Having gone through the parliamentary pleasantries, which I am delighted to have had the opportunity to do, as the last Minister to speak in this Parliament, I turn to what the hon. Member for Buckingham said about the important subject of the treatment of diabetes. He referred to the diabetes pledge that was issued recently by Diabetes UK. It urged decision makers in this place and health care professionals to recognise the seriousness of diabetes as a growing health challenge, and we certainly do. Therefore, I assure the hon. Gentleman of the seriousness with which the Government take diabetes.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, diabetes has a major impact on the lives of nearly 1.4 million of our fellow citizens, who have been diagnosed either with type 1, which is insulin dependent, or type 2, which is non-insulin dependent, diabetes. As he rightly said, the number of people with type 2 diabetes is forecast to increase significantly over the next decade, yet at the same time healthy eating, physical activity and weight management can prevent or delay the onset of type 2 diabetes.
	If not properly managed, diabetes can result in a range of long-term complications--cardiovascular disease, blindness, renal failure, lower limb problems leading to amputation and, in some cases, earlier death. As a consequence, it has a significant impact on the national health service: diabetes and its complications cost the NHS nearly £5 billion a year, or 10 per cent. of its overall expenditure.
	As the hon. Gentleman observed, there is evidence of unacceptable variations in the standard of the diabetes service provided throughout the country. The Audit Commission study of diabetes recently demonstrated that. That report showed some areas of very good practice, with staff working across sectors to improve patient care, but those examples are not always widely shared throughout the NHS. I strongly believe that there is nothing wrong with the NHS that cannot be put right by what is best about the NHS. That particularly applies to some of the issues to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
	It was the variations in the organisation and quality of service that prompted the Government to announce in 1999 the development of a new national service framework for diabetes in England. It is also worth highlighting that the Government have taken action in different spheres to help to improve the lives of people with diabetes. For example, we responded positively to a campaign by Diabetes UK by adding insulin pen needles and certain reusable insulin pens to the drug tariff last year, making them available for the first time on general practitioner prescription. On a different matter, following a review prompted by the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology inquiry into driving and diabetes, new arrangements came into effect last month for individual medical assessment of people with insulin-treated diabetes who apply for licences to drive small goods vehicles. The Government are willing to listen to the concerns of people with diabetes and, where we can, to act on them.
	The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions about the national service framework for diabetes. I shall try to deal with the points that he made. The aims of the national service framework are to improve health outcomes for people with diabetes by raising the quality of services and reducing variations between them. In doing so, I expect it to deal with the issues highlighted in Diabetes UK's diabetes pledge.
	The scope of the national service framework is broad and covers prevention, identification and management of diabetes and its complications, including rehabilitation and continuing care. The framework will set clear national standards that we shall expect to see implemented. It will also define new service models, put in place effective strategies to support implementation and delivery of the new standards, and establish performance measures against which progress within an agreed time scale will be measured and monitored.
	As with previous national service frameworks, that for diabetes has been developed in close consultation with an expert advisory group that has brought together service users, patients, health care professionals and health service managers. As the hon. Gentleman must know, that group was chaired in an effective and distinguished way by Professor Mike Pringle, chair of the council at the Royal College of General Practitioners, and Peter Houghton, regional director of the eastern regional office of the NHS executive.
	We have published information about and arising from the development of the national service framework for diabetes on the worldwide web. We expect to publish the framework itself later this year, for implementation throughout the NHS in 2002. In general terms, we are seeking to put the person with diabetes at the centre of the health care system. His or her needs must be paramount. It will be a model for how the NHS supports and cares for people who are disadvantaged in some way--in this case, as a consequence of chronic disease.
	The national service framework for diabetes is an important plank of the Government's quality and modernisation agenda for the NHS. In 1997, shortly after taking office, we set out how we intended to set a clear structure that held those who deliver services to account. In the White Paper "The new NHS" and the policy document "A First Class Service", the Government introduced a range of measures that we hope will raise quality and standards and decrease unacceptable variations in service. Standards will be in the first instance set by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and by national service frameworks; delivered locally by means of clinical governance; underpinned by professional self-regulation and lifelong learning; and monitored by the new Commission for Health Improvement, the NHS performance assessment framework and the NHS patients survey.
	For the first time in the history of the NHS, we are trying to set clear national standards to guarantee fair treatment wherever patients live--whether in the hon. Gentleman's constituency or in mine. For the first time, we are inspecting all parts of the health service to ensure that patients get the top-class service that they deserve.
	The quality agenda, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman also places heavy emphasis on, is at the heart of the Government's strategy for modernising the NHS. The NHS plan takes the agenda further still, introducing further steps to improve both customer service and the safety of patient care. The plan sets out how we will develop the role of primary care through better facilities--the hon. Gentleman was concerned about the balance between secondary and primary care--more staff and more integrated and multi-disciplinary working. That will raise the standard of care for people with diabetes in the primary sector, easing the pressure on hospitals, so that they can concentrate on providing the necessary specialist care.
	Diabetes UK's diabetes pledge refers to the importance of patient-centred care. Care dictated by the needs of the patient, not the system, will be at the core of the NHS plan. The Government therefore attach great importance to involving patients, carers and the wider public in decisions about health service policy and delivery. That is why we have made great efforts to ensure that we hear the voices of people with diabetes and of parents of children with diabetes--I know that that is a concern of the hon. Gentleman--in the development of the national service framework. There were, for example, two people with diabetes on the expert reference group, plus Paul Streets of Diabetes UK. Other people with diabetes were on the various topic area groups set up by the expert reference group. There were more than 40 people with diabetes among the 120 or so who attended a 24-hour workshop in October 2000 to focus on patient and care pathways. The National Centre for Social Research was commissioned to run user focus groups and to conduct in-depth interviews with people with diabetes.
	We want individual patients to play a greater role in determining the care that the NHS provides. We believe that an NHS that works effectively with patients will deliver better results for individual patients and better health for the whole population.
	The hon. Member for Buckingham may be interested to know that an example of that objective in action is provided by the Bradford health action zone programme, which is developing models for delivering diabetes care within primary care. The local community and health care professionals are working together to improve the diabetes care within the sector through the development of new care models. Bradford demonstrates how our determination to modernise the NHS and tackle inequalities can improve services.
	Encouraging people with diabetes to play a full role in the management of their own condition will be a cornerstone of effective care. To do that, we have to help them develop the knowledge and skills to become partners in their own care. Diabetes is an excellent exemplar of the need for a partnership between patient and clinician. As I have suggested, that will be a key focus of the diabetes national service framework. It is also central to the work of the expert patients task force, which I expect to inspire a major expansion of patient-led self-management programmes across the NHS. Indeed, the NHS plan committed us to establishing a comprehensive expert patients programme. We shall deliver that commitment.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the particular prevalence of diabetes in south Asian, black African and black Caribbean people. The diabetes national service framework will therefore pay particular heed to the needs of those who are disproportionately affected by diabetes, including people from minority ethnic groups.
	The hon. Gentleman also rightly stressed the importance of detecting diabetes as early as possible--an issue highlighted by Diabetes UK in its diabetes pledge and, indeed, in its missing million campaign. Whether or not there are as many as 1 million people in the UK with undiagnosed diabetes, as Diabetes UK estimates, early detection to enable early treatment is clearly important. That is why we asked the UK national screening committee to consider how that objective could most effectively be achieved and whether there was a case for introducing a targeted screening programme or more active case finding for type 2 diabetes. The evidence on screening for type 2 diabetes is not clear cut.
	The national screening committee came back with proposals for a type 2 diabetes development project, which were approved by Ministers last month. The project will aim to assess the implications of targeted screening for those working in primary care and the practical issues in its delivery. It is being designed to dovetail with existing research projects on screening for type 2 diabetes and should ensure that we have a clear picture of whether screening is the most appropriate way of improving identification of the condition.
	Once they are received, the national screening committee's conclusions will inform implementation of the diabetes national service framework, as, too, will its recommendations for a national screening programme for diabetic retinopathy, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned and which we published last November.
	We know that, once diabetes has been diagnosed, tight control of blood pressure and blood glucose levels are of key importance in its management. The UK prospective diabetes study--UKPDS--found that the lives of people with type 2 diabetes can be saved by more frequent checks and better treatment to keep blood glucose and blood pressure levels as normal as possible.
	The Department of Health and the NHS, with the Medical Research Council, Diabetes UK and other sponsors, have made a major investment over many years in the UKPDS. It is an example of the real, life-saving benefits that can come from investment in high-quality long-term research. The Government themselves make a significant contribution to diabetes research through both the Medical Research Council and NHS support for research and development.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the work of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. A whole raft of other work on diabetes feeds into the new quality agenda to which I referred earlier, including that of NICE. NICE will help to ensure that the NHS provides the best possible treatment with the available resources, to bring an end to the lottery of care in which some treatments are available in some areas but not in others. The hon. Gentleman and all other hon. Members are concerned about that issue.
	NICE will be issuing clinical guidance on aspects of the management of type 2 diabetes this autumn, and developing clinical guidelines for type 1 diabetes for publication next year. In recent months, NICE has also appraised the effectiveness of two new diabetes drugs to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and published guidance on their use.
	NICE has recently reviewed the evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the two drugs. Its guidance on both drugs was similar--that either can be considered as a possible alternative to insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes whose condition is not being satisfactorily controlled by diet and other tablets. Of course, they will also give doctors another tool in the armoury of treatments available to them. However, prescription for individual patients will still be a matter of individual clinical judgment. Nevertheless, given NICE's guidance, use of both drugs, which are new on the market, can be expected to increase in the future.
	Earlier this week, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), announced consultation on the proposed next wave of appraisal topics to be referred to NICE. It includes three diabetes topics: insulin pump therapy, to which the hon. Member for Buckingham quite properly referred; insulin glargine; other long-acting insulin analogues; and patient education models for diabetes. We shall consider further diabetes issues for possible addition to NICE's future work programme.
	The importance of giving the person with diabetes appropriate information, to which the hon. Gentleman quite properly referred, was one of the issues highlighted by the tragic death of a young woman with diabetes, on which the health service ombudsman issued a special report only last December. The ombudsman made specific recommendations to the general practitioner and the hospital involved. However, as the ombudsman suggested, there are wider lessons to be learned from that sad case about the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes which we are determined to learn. We shall seek to ensure that those lessons are taken on board in the diabetes national service framework.
	Finally, I should like to highlight some of the dramatic improvements in health outcomes that research suggests we can expect once best practice becomes the norm. We aim to reduce deaths related to diabetes by one third, and to reduce the risks of coronary heart disease, strokes, kidney damage and serious deterioration of vision by at least one third. Diabetes is the biggest cause of blindness in people of working age. We should also be able to reduce amputations and ulcers significantly. We could also provide better co-ordinated patient and family focused services for children and young people making the transition to adult services.
	Those are all major goals for the treatment of diabetes in the future. The diabetes national framework will, for the first time, give us the practical means of ensuring that those aspirations become a reality.

Dale Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend the Minister has given a very substantial response to the debate, which was initiated by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I do not think that I can usefully add to what he has said, other than to say that, over the years, I have had a number of constituents who, having come to me on those matters, will reflect on his comments.
	May I also thank my hon. Friend for his very generous remarks? I realise that this is an Adjournment debate, and I think that I have some understanding of procedure, but I should like to go slightly wider than procedure may strictly allow and still remain in order. I should just like to say one or two words to the House before I disappear off into the sunset in my retirement.
	Often in the past few days, like many of my hon. Friends who are retiring, I have had cause to reflect on why I sought election to the House of Commons. I first sought election to this place in 1974, in a general election, and tried again in a by-election, in 1976, which I lost. Subsequently, in 1979, I was elected.
	My reason for seeking election to this place was based on a conversation that I had with my mother when I was in my late teens. She told me that, in this life, to make a real contribution to the way in which the world works, one has to engage in public service in some way. Many of us who were then in our teens and twenties, formulating our political views, chose the political route as a way of entering public service. Some of us went on to become Ministers or parliamentarians; others, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), became great and eminent parliamentarians.
	Over the years, I have watched with great interest new generations of young people coming into the House. I have often set out to help them in their early days and given them my advice, because I had been given advice. I was given advice by one man--the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam)--who, although he subsequently defected to the Conservative party, was very good to me when I was elected. I was also given advice by the late Bob Cryer.
	I have always remembered that. They helped me when I knew that many were not being helped, and I resolved that I would help others. I really think that that pays. Over the past few days, I have had a number of letters and many conversations with people who recalled times and occasions in their early political lives when I was able to give them some advice which they took and which proved useful to them. I hope that when the new crop of Members comes to the House after the election, there will be people who set aside time to help them, because it is rewarding for the giver and, in particular, for the receiver.
	Over recent years, I have watched the developments in the Opposition with the new crop of young Conservative Members who, in many ways, reflect the approach that we took when we entered the House, which was to oppose the Government. To be frank, I have been quite impressed. The problem is that there are not enough of them engaged in the practice. It is strange that when I came here, some of the people who used to say to me, "Get on with it," were Conservatives. They said, "It is often easier for you, in the Opposition, to deal with issues that we find politically embarrassing." That is true.
	We had a good crop of Members; we used to call them the "fighting 40". I remember that we used to come to the Chamber and hold the Government to ransom--we would run all night if we could, and we did so on memorable occasions.
	The point is that opposition is an art, and one learned it and mastered procedure. We spent hours in the Chamber just learning. We looked forward to the procedural feasts when Members would get themselves in difficult procedural wrangles. I remember George Cunningham, who subsequently went to the SDP, and Alex Lyon as great parliamentarians. Such people were very good at teaching us how this place worked. There is no politics in that; it is about being a parliamentarian.
	My plea, as I leave, is that more people recognise that being a great parliamentarian is more important in many ways than being a great Minister. Great parliamentarians, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, will be remembered for generations, whereas Ministers may well be forgotten. I say that with no disrespect to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, because he will be remembered. He is my tip for the Cabinet in the next Parliament.
	I want a whole career structure to be built up whereby Members choose a route when they are elected. They will decide whether they want to be held to account or whether they want to hold others to account. That is important. When we secure a Parliament with a career structure within which people can develop and within which Chairmen of Select Committees are paid, that will give Members an incentive to be part of the legislature and the House will benefit immeasurably.
	I read what I regard as pap and drivel in the press about how my hon. Friends have formed part of a compliant Labour majority in the House. That is simply untrue. The quality of questioning by many of my hon. Friends over the past four years has been excellent. Many have been prepared to ask awkward questions of Ministers and to hold them to account, inside and outside the House. The problem is that the press are not prepared to face up to what is really going on. There is accountability, and all I would say is that it could be improved in future.
	I have loved this place, as indeed have many of my hon. Friends, including those who are leaving and those who will remain, and I will love it more into the future. It has been a huge honour for me to be here. I am indebted to the people in my constituency who put me here, to my party and to all the friends whom I have made over all these years.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) wishes to make a point of order, but before he does so I have something to say. The Clerk advises me that is not normal for Back Benchers to rise after the Minister has spoken, and there is no precedent for the Speaker taking part in a debate, but I am going to do so today.
	With a general election coming, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) could have applied for an Adjournment debate on a subject with more relevance to his constituency, which might have given him a political advantage, but he did not. He raised a matter that affects each and every one of us and our communities--the problem of diabetes. I hope that the tradition of the Adjournment debate, whereby a Minister can come here and give an account of his stewardship of any matter, always continues. The hon. Gentleman has done a good thing.
	I look at our small gathering and I can say to everyone that I regard you all as friends. It is said that Speakers should not have any friends, but I say that they should have as many friends as possible, but no favourites.
	I look at the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) and I remember that when I was on my first Select Committee he was very helpful. He showed me a generosity and a kindness that I realise is typical of him. On our first trip abroad--it is not fair to say which land we visited--we went to a factory. There was no proper roof; there was coal and charcoal on the floor; molten metal was being pushed on a trolley and, to keep it from spilling, rags and sand were being thrown on to it by labourers. I was a great man with a camera, and I said, "Peter, I'm going to take a photograph of this, put it in my election address and call it 'Thatcher's Britain'." I wish the right hon. Gentleman very well indeed. I know that we will see him again because he is going to do a lot of work for the retired Members.
	I remember that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) entered the House on the same day as me. We were very confused, and he decided that every day he would spend hours in the Chamber and learn procedure. I nipped off to the Tea Room, saying, "No, Dale, I don't want to do that", but he did it. Eventually, not only the younger Members but the older ones came to him to ask him about procedure. I take on board what he said about the fact that no new Member should come into the House and be thrown in at the deep end. They should be helped, and that is a tradition that I always upheld as a Member because I knew that some, but not all, of the senior Members did not bother with the new Members. They should give them every piece of advice possible. I will miss the hon. Gentleman.
	The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will recall mentioning to me that his dear wife Caroline had written a book about Keir Hardie. We in Glasgow always talk about the specific district we come from. I say that I came from the district of Anderson, and next door is the district of Partick, where Keir Hardie came from. I asked the right hon. Gentleman, "Please tell Caroline that she will find that Hardie spent some of his childhood years in Partick, where my mother and father had their first tenement flat--what we in Glasgow called a single end." The following day, a book arrived--the biography of Keir Hardie, signed by Caroline. It is now up in the Speaker's Study. I shall always treasure it. It was so nice that my conversation with the right hon. Gentleman in the Tea Room was carried home. I greatly appreciate that book, personally signed by the author.
	I wish you all the best for the future. I say to those who are going out to participate in the election, I wish you all well.

Andrew Tyrie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to raise this point of order after so kindly and thoughtful a speech as yours. I rise to ask that the adjournment be delayed to enable the Government to answer for the inconsistency between statements made in the House on 14 May and 1 June 1998 and the action that they took a few days later, on 4 and 5 June, when, at the behest of the Hinduja brothers, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary met the Indian Prime Minister's special adviser.
	At that time, India had just conducted nuclear tests and the Foreign Secretary said that India
	"should . . . pay for isolation within the international community."--[Official Report, 1 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 21.]
	The British Government cancelled visits by the Indian chiefs of staff and asked for a review by the European Commission of preferential trade treatment. We now know that, at the very time that the Foreign Secretary was making his statements to the House, arrangements were being made for the special adviser to the Indian Prime Minister to meet--

Mr. Speaker: Order. My answer is no. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a substantive case through a point of order, and the Foreign Secretary will not be making a statement. It is as simple as that.

Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker--and this is a bit more important. Did you read The Mirror this morning? In it, there is a column by Paul Routledge in which he talks about saying goodbye to our right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and others, but because he did not do his homework--it is all about sloppy journalism these days, as you will know from all the points of order on the subject raised by Opposition Members--he got it wrong and said that I, too, would be retiring.
	Well, I have news for The Mirror and Routledge: I shall be back here, in this place, on 13 June, when we shall have an election for the Speaker--although you might get nodded through, Mr. Speaker. To Paul Routledge and everybody else, I say, I shall be back here, fighting for redistribution of wealth from the City financiers to the poor and those whom my hon. Friends have represented over the years, and those in Glasgow--and Partick in particular--will benefit as well.

Mr. Speaker: I shall let the people of Partick know.

Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether we are waiting for a message from the Lords or whether we are ready to go, but is it in order to thank you? You have broken another precedent today by making a speech from the Chair. I tell all visitors that it is a characteristic of the Speaker that he never makes a speech, but you have changed that. You have been a marvellous Speaker--kind to us personally and good in the Chair. I, for one, bitterly resent the wholly unfounded criticisms that have been made. I shall watch from afar as you are re-elected within the month.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it was Harry Truman who said that if they were giving out compliments, he would be sure to be in the wrong queue.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Appropriation Act 2001
	Finance Act 2001
	Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001
	Social Security Fraud Act 2001
	Private Security Industry Act 2001
	House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Act 2001
	Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Act 2001
	Health and Social Care Act 2001
	Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001
	International Criminal Court Act 2001
	Children's Commissioner for Wales Act 2001
	Armed Forces Act 2001
	Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Act 2001
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Twelve noon. End of the Fourth Session (opened on 23 October 2000) of the Fifty-Second Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the Fiftieth Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.